Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Low Latency Patch | From | Yoann Vandoorselaere <> | Date | 01 Jul 2000 22:35:34 +0200 |
| |
Gregory Maxwell <greg@linuxpower.cx> writes:
> On 1 Jul 2000, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote: > > [snip] > > <quote> > > For example, let's say that something uses an O(n^3) algorithm, and > > to "overcome" the expense of this thing we add scheduling points in it. > > That's the easy way to do it. But maybe the right thing to do is to > > realize that the code may be badly structured in the first place? > > </quote> > > > > The low latency patch only add scheduling point all over the place. > [...]
> > As I understand it, Linuses goal is to provided a useful and mailtainable > system.
Yop, he don't want to accept hackish code when something clean can be done.
> He's has decided that he wants to make it useful for audio tasks > and he's willing to impliment rechedule hacks where there is no > alternative (i.e. no complexity reduction can be performed).
Right, but that isn't only audio task, think to video (especially dvd) and i'm sure their is other.
-- -- Yoann http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~yoann/ It is well known that M$ product don't make a free() after a malloc(), the unix community wish them good luck for their future development.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |